Ryan would be the latest in a string of high-profile endorsements for Romney this week, as party leaders have increasingly coalesced around the former Massachusetts governor's campaign. The Wisconsin lawmaker would join popular freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and former president George H. W. Bush in signaling support for Romney this week.

In the last 150 years, 3rd parties have been, are, and always will be no more than protest votes unless you get a New York State style system.

The only way to make an actual difference is to take over the GOP from local levels on upward and to take advantage of primaries and open seats. That's it. That doesn't mean I won't vote protest occasionally. I did for governor last time, but 3rd parties are only good for protest votes.

He is basically saying that we need time to build our organization and that if we wait until convention that there will not be time to do this. It is coming down to who has the best chance to beat Obama, and Romney has the best (albeit it VERY limited) chance to do so

Ryan sees many faults in Romney, including his weak fiscal stances in MA. Ryan was also likely told that he would be left to hang by the GOP-E if he did not endorse Romney. Now he will be safe and only Duffy and Ribble will be left to hang.

155
posted on 03/30/2012 8:16:11 AM PDT
by Thunder90
(Romney barely won in OH with a 12-1 money advantage, he can't beat Obama that way.)

Paul Ryan is he's not a lone wolf conservative. He's akin to a middle manager in the House. He's budget chairman but he ultimately answers to higher ups like Boehner and "takes one for the team" not unlike Santorum when the #3 guy in the Senate, although he'd have been higher up the chain of command and thus more accountable.

Ryan should be judged more on the things he proposes and tries to accomplish.

I'm puzzled at this endorsement since last year he said he would not be endorsing since he'd been asked to fundraise for whomever the nominee became. It's highly likely it'll be Romney but it's not a "done deal."

That's a good way to put it. The candidate I've seen on TV, in the debates and in his primary victory speeches--that guy is pretty good: pro-private sector; pro-Keystone pipeline; pro-military; pro-SC justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas; anti-Obamacare; anti-Roe v. Wade; anti-homosexual "marriage"; anti-illegal immigration; etc.

But the thing is, I don't know if that's the REAL Romney. I don't even know if there IS a "real Romney." Or is he just "Omni-Romney," "Sketch" Romney, the Man of a Thousand Faces? This has been my heistancy with him all along, that, plus the lack of a strong alternative candidate. But it is almost certain now that he will be the nominee, and I don't see how he could be anywhere near as bad as Obama. And he won't have an 85% Democrat legislature to deal with, either.

Unless the conservative primary candidate Romney switches course on Obamacare, abortion, or homo marriage between now and November, I will vote for him over Obamao, vote for conservatives in Congress, and then hope for the best.

160
posted on 03/30/2012 8:25:26 AM PDT
by Charles Henrickson
(Not thrilled with any of the R's, but despise the D's thoroughly.)

Just more evidence that Paul Ryan talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk. When it comes down to voting on legislation, Ryan is no better than John Boehner. Ryan and Rubio both have nice haircuts and are telegenic, but they are establishment guys. Ryan’s reasoning for endorsing Romney is superficial; “we’ve got to coelesce; we all have to hold hands in order to beat Obama”. Santorum should call him out on this.

Obviously the fix was always in for Romney by the GOPE. It is a huge mistake, the end of the GOP, even if Romney is elected. Romney will be chewed up from the Left AND Right, he has no natural constituency that will fight for him, just triangulators.

I will personally go after him on the Mormon/God issues, just waiting for the election to end because Obama is truly Armageddon.

Palin will end up endorsing, supporting and campaigning for Romney too. . . . that is precisely what is going to happen. If Romney wins the nomination, and at this point it is nearly certain he will, Sarah Palin will endorse, support and actively campaign for him. You better get used to Palin speaking highly of Romney and telling us why we should vote for him, because that is exactly what she is going to do.

Palin has already said as much. On more than one occasion, Palin has said that she is ABO, that she will support the Republican nominee, and that that includes Romney. The key is the "ABO."

168
posted on 03/30/2012 8:51:52 AM PDT
by Charles Henrickson
(Not thrilled with any of the R's, but despise the D's thoroughly.)

No. A vote that doesn’t support Romney in the general doesn’t magically transform into a vote for Obama, and people need to stop pushing the myth that it works that way. If the choices are 1 or 2 and I vote 3, I haven’t given a vote to anyone except 3, and nothing will change that.

Ryan and DeMint are politicians. They are better than some, but they are still politicians. Most of the conservatives who are backing Romney are doing so because they think he can win, because thats what the consultants are telling them.

Looks like Paul Ryan isn't above changing the rules or telling a nontruth when it suits his fashion:

UPDATE: Ryan's aides had told reporters on Capitol Hill that his position as president of the RNC presidential trust, a sum of $21 million that the committee turns over to the nominee, had meant he couldn't endorse in the primary, making this a bit of a shift.

What is clear is that Romney's team is hoping for a win in Wisconsin that, whatever the margin, they can use to declare victory  and the primary over  in the hope of depressing Santorum's numbers in his home state. Santorum's aides have said he plans to keep fighting, that a number of May contests favor him. But if he truly faces the chance of losing Pennsylvania  and a poll this past week showed the race statistically tied between him and Romney there  Santorum could end up with a tough choice to make about his future.

Doesn't anybody know as much as they think they do. I actually don't disagree with 90% of the rest of your post. I've heard similar from some offices and different talk from others I know. Some are good friends. Some are acquaintances that I see a few times a year on business.

However, here's my response to your friend in Minnesota. It's the same thing I asked some folks I know. My biggest gripe is budgetary.

[ How long do you think any of us would be able to stay in office, if we were to always cater to the extreme fringe who represents less than 10% of the population?]

What is extreme fringe about balancing the budget and not raising taxes? If the Ryan plan that is such a favorite among the center-right is considered very conservative today and likely unattainable, how did the fiscal culture move so far to the left from even the Clinton years when there was an almost balanced budget?

Oddly enough, the radical fringe rantings coming from this thread do not fully represent the base overall.

The problem I see here on this site and others is that people build up their people often to unreachable expectations until there's one bad decision, and then mercilessly destroy that person for not living up to them. In the alternative, they destroy everyone but that their person trying to clear the field for their candidate, who may not even be running.

Change the thinking of the population first, before you can have the perfect conservative world you dream of.

That's obvious, but I think there's been a real shift in the thinking of the population that has been missed, at least when it comes to fiscal issues.

The extreme malcontents on this forum would be saying the same things about Reagan. After all, he had prior marriages, was a former Democrat, actually signed the first Amnesty bill into Law and increased the Federal Deficit by a considerable margin.

Huh... Sounds exactly like our supporters of Santorum, when speaking against anyone else.

There is very little leadership in the republican party. They are all soley interested in advancing their own political careers. This endorsement is a prime example. Ryan’s record does not mesh with Romney’s at all. The only major republican with national name recognition outside the race who has endorsed anyone besides Romney is Jindal.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A MURDERER IS LESS TO FEAR.”

-Marcus Tullius Cicero

I’m willing to wager that many “conservatives,” including some on here, will follow Paul Ryan’s lead and hold their nose for the father of socialized medicine in America. I’m sure those of you who cave will have John Boehner and Mitch McConnell’s gratitude for the camaraderie once again.

It is all personal gain. Nothing more, nothing less. There is probably about a 95% chance Romney is going to get the nomination, even if it goes to Tampa. If Ryan is going to advance, it is more advantageos to kiss the ring and endorse a sure thing rather than piss off and go against the establishment. It is pure cowardice and lack of leadership. I wish Jindal was eligible. He has been, off the top of my head, the only one that had the balls to go against Romney. I hope that wing of the party can stage a coup next go around because obviously the Bushes are still in charge at this point.

Me too. Wouldn't you love to see Perry campaigning on SCOTUS steps? '10th Amendment, guys. Get it right!'

You know, just a thought here but Perry didn't quit, just suspended his campaign. What if .....

An awful lot of people rip on Newt supporters, not dealing with reality, staying in long after he (and we) should have given up.. blah blah blah...

but as far as I am concerned, the other conservative candidate's supporters should have been more like the Newt supporters... Perry, whom I am hoping will be a VP or something very high for Newt, was in and out before anybody had even gotten to know him.

What it all tells me is a great portion of conservative republicans, or republicans who call themselves conservatives, don't stand or fight, can be run off by the media, and have no steadfastness in their bones.

Newt supporters, bloodied but unbowed, and surely soon to get more bloodied, do.

I get your point, and I could see him on a Santorum/Ryan ticket. I think a strong conservative could be a good influence on Ryan, but right now, he’s too much of a party man for me to sing any praises. This is why his endorsement comes as no surprise, at least to me. In fact, I’m surprised that you’re surprised! lol

As far as Santorum is concerned, I thought he got awfully cocky, and actually cheered when he lost his Senate seat. IMO, in the way things worked out, he then had the opportunity to seriously recommit to conservative principles, especially during the year of 99 townhalls in Iowa.

Ive been for Perry all along and hoping for a miracle. I tried to support Newt but he faded very quickly. Not going to happen.

Before the primaries started, I was hoping one of our experienced Republican governors would emerge as the obvious candidate--e.g., Barbour, Daniels, Pawlenty, or Perry. I knew of these guys, mostly by reputation, as conservative, competent, and potentially electable.

Barbour and Daniels never got in. Pawlenty did, and early on, I liked what I was reading. But then in the first couple debates, he came across as snide, weak toward Romney and harsh toward Bachmann, and then he dropped out right away. In comes Perry. Again, good from what I had read--Tenth Amendment guy, "gets" federalism. But then in the debates, he came across as a dumb, slow-witted Texan, which didn't go over too well. Another disappointment. Bachmann and Cain, I never saw as electable--and they weren't. I didn't think Santorum and Gingrich were very electable, either. They did better than I expected, but still, not enough. So, given my heistancies about Romeny, I didn't really have a candidate I could get excited about in this go-round. (I was a FredHead in '07-'08.)

During the debates I cheered when any one of the candidates made a good point, especially when it was for conservative principles and policies, or when it was against Obama, not against each other. (The only candidate I got angry against was Paul, for his naive foreign policy.) I cheer for anyone on "our team" when they do well. I was reluctant to bash any of our candidates, because I know we need a united front against Obama.

185
posted on 03/30/2012 9:19:06 AM PDT
by Charles Henrickson
(Not thrilled with any of the R's, but despise the D's thoroughly.)

Once the race reaches Pennsylvania, you can bet that Patty Toomey will line up behind Romney. Remember Patty Toomey came out in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, right after he was safely elected Senator.

I appreciate your response. It's fair. I've been telling folks that don't understand the parable of the slow-boiled frog nearly the same thing. Romney may not "hate" America, but he's in the "fundamentally transform" camp. At least Obama's utter contempt inspires the same reaction from us. Obama will be impeached long before the end of a second term, because his administration is teaching us to hate them as much as they hate us. Impeachment has already been proposed and papers circulating. It is the GOP-elite's Plan C (Plan A is to ram Romney down our throats in the primary, Plan B is to ram Romney down our throats in the contested convention.) I'd rather Plan C succeed than Plan A or Plan B. It's the only plan they have that works in the best interests of their conservative base.

This. Brownsfan essentially listed three quite minor differences between Romney and Obama, while ignoring the fact that Romney essentially holds to the same type of "America needs to change" mentality that Obama does. For instance, Romney may not specifically hand $1.5 billion to the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, but this isn't a guarantee that he won't do equally as stupid things in the foreign policy realm - and for much the same reasons.

It’s amazing how many people on this board are suddenly going wobbly for Romney, ain’t it, especially after all the documented damage his minions have done to Conservatives in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, since 2008?

Its amazing how many people on this board are suddenly going wobbly for Romney, aint it, especially after all the documented damage his minions have done to Conservatives in general, and Sarah Palin in particular, since 2008?

Let's face it - there will always be people, even a lot here on FR - who would rather crouch, lick hands, and hope for comfortable chains than to rock the boat by trying to do something about the problems we face.

What Ryan is doing is siding with the GOP-e in their efforts to ram a candidate down our throats. If Romney wins, the only reason for it would be that conservatives gave up.

We have time and the primary process should play out. There will be time enough to beat Obama. In the meantime, Ryan has shown us that as far as he’s concerned party will always win out over the people.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.